Healy v McNamara

[2025] QCAT 394

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Healy v McNamara  [2025] QCAT 394

PARTIES:

MATTHEW HEALY

(applicant)

v

REGAN MCNAMARA

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

Q2461-25

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

DELIVERED ON:

13 October 2025

RECONSTITUTION:

23 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

9 June 2025

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Lember

ORDERS:

1.     The Residential Tenancies Authority is directed to pay the rental bond held in the sum of $2,065.00 to the parties as follows:

(a)     $871.48 to the applicant/lessor, and

(b)     $1,193.52 to the respondent/tenant Member to type or copy order

CATCHWORDS:

LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION – COMPENSATION – – residential tenancy dispute – compensation claim by lessor at end of tenancy 

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009(Qld) s 13, s 100

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008(Qld) s 184C, s 185, s 188, s 217, s 362, s 415, s 416, s 419

Davidson v J S Gilbert Fabrications Pty Ltd [1986] 1 Qd R 1

Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384 Fankhauser v Mission Beach Property Management [2017] QCATA 65
Gagner Pty Ltd t/as Indochine Café v Canturi         Corporation Pty Ltd (2009) 262 ALR 691
Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351
Ray White Victoria Point v Simons & Anor [2018] QCATA 162
Stockdale & Leggo v Gordon [2017] QCATA 112

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is the application about?

1. Mr Healy, a lessor, claims the bond held by the Residential Tenancies Authority (RTA) and additional compensation arising from Ms McNamara’s tenancy of his property.

2. In arriving at this decision, the Tribunal, as reconstituted, has had regard to all material filed in the proceeding and to the audio recording of the hearing on 9 June 2025.

3. The RTA hold $2,065.00 pending the outcome of this dispute, a sum of $735.00 having been released to Mr Healy with Ms McNamara’s consent for “one weeks rent”.[1] 

   [1]Response filed 26 February 2025.

4. It is not disputed that:

   (a)Ms McNamara commenced her tenancy on 1 February 2023.

   (b)Ms McNamara compiled the entry condition report tendered in evidence in these proceedings and its contents are not in dispute.[2]

   (c)The tenancy was captured in two General Tenancy Agreements (GTA):

   (i)      The first was signed on 30 January 2023 and expressed to commence on “1 February 2023” and to end on “30 January 2024”. Special terms of this first GTA provided that the tenant was responsible for pool maintenance including chemicals and servicing except capital expenses, and that with respect to gas she was to pay for refills to the gas cylinders rented by the lessor, with at least one full bottle to be left at the end of the tenancy. This supplemented standard terms that required the tenant to pay for gas, electricity and water supplied to the premises.

   (ii)      The second commenced 1 February 2024 and ended 30 January 2025. It was negotiated during an exchange of emails between 24 January 2024 and 30 January 2024. Standard terms again required the tenant to pay for gas, electricity and water supplied to the premises. A special term provided that: “This agreement replaces the existing rental agreement”. It also stated that, provided the tenant gave notice of termination on or before 1 July 2024, she could terminate the GTA on 1 August 2024 without paying costs incurred by the lessor to relet the premises.

   (d)Ms McNamara sent Mr Healy a text message on 14 October 2024 indicating her intention to vacate the property early, on 10 December 2024, as she had purchased elsewhere.

   (e)Ms McNamara did vacate the property by 10 December 2024, with cleaning undertaken in the days prior and an exit inspection taking place on 11 December 2024.

   (f)Routine inspections did not occur throughout the tenancy.

   [2]Submissions of Mr Healy filed 18 February 2025, at paragraph 32, agreed by Ms McNamara in her statement of 7 March 2205.

5. It appears the date of 31 January 2024 was completely overlooked by both parties in terms of documenting the tenancy, but nothing turns on this in the circumstances of this dispute.  

6. By the express terms of the second GTA, the special terms relating to gas and responsibility for the pool contained in the first GTA were removed from the second GTA.

The lessor’s claims

1. By an application filed 18 February 2025, amended with leave on 28 February 2025, Mr Healy claims:

Water (GTA cl 17 and item 12.2)
Redlands City Council	Consumption from 20 August 2024 to 10 December 2024 (per last notice and final water meter read).	$212.98
Gas (GTA cl 16 and item 12.1)
Origin Gas	One refill bottle per historical cost to purchase.	$182.00
Oven cleaning
Oven U	Estimate based on historical cost to clean.	$235.00
Replace damaged ensuite
Davran Installations quote 19 February 2025	Replace damaged vanity including necessary plumbing.	$3,595.00
Replace damaged carpet
Bennetts quote 25 February 2025	Supply and install carpet to bedroom 3 including underlay and disposing of existing carpet.	$1,493.00
Swimming pool expenses
Swimart email 13 January 205	Suggests treatment for stains, deferred to Winter months, involving 3 site visits over a week, est $350-$450.	$400.00
Mr Healy	Three hours at $50 per hour to attend pool shop and property to scrub the pool and to add chemicals	$150.00
Swimart Invoice 13 December 2024	Chemicals plus algae brush ($29.90) less a ‘Turbine Hub Van Kit’ valued at $89.90 not claimed.	$106.30
Swimart Invoice 14 December 2024	Chemicals less a ‘Plastic CPR sign’ valued at $24.95 not claimed.	$52.95
Swimart Invoice 7 February 2025	Pool service performed on 13 January 2025.	$99.00

1. Ms McNamara disputes the claim to her balance bond on the following bases:[3]

   (a)Water usage was “provided late” and in any event the $735.00 she released from the bond can be applied to the outstanding amount. Further, the lessor’s calculation is inflated.

   (b)The gas bill has already been paid and gas was not reordered.

   (c)The oven was cleaner on exit than it was on entry.

   (d)There were no odours in the ensuite vanity caused by her tenancy and the lessor has not proved the claim with cogent evidence.

   (e)Carpet was not damaged during her tenancy, was professionally cleaned at the start and at the end of her tenancy and the lessor has not proved the claim with cogent evidence.

   (f)The pool was also in a better condition on exit than it was on entry.

   [3]Response filed 26 February 2025.

2. As a general principle, Ms McNamara also says that she undertook repairs and improvements of the home at her expense during the tenancy and these should be weighed against the end-of-tenancy claims. This is not an uncommon submission in tenancy disputes of this nature. Unfortunately, each claim for compensation must be considered on its merits. Although s13 of the QCAT Act requires the tribunal to make orders that are ‘fair and equitable to the parties’ this would not extend to an overall assessment of fairness and equity in the context of the entire tenancy, but rather, in the context of the tenancy dispute before it.

The legislative framework for tenancy compensation claims

1. Section 188(4) of the RTRA Act, requires tenants, at the end of the tenancy, to leave the premises as far as possible in the same condition they were in at the start of the tenancy fair wear and tear excepted.

2. Claims for compensation under s419 arising from a breach of s188 or the GTA must be brought within six months of the claiming party “becoming aware of the breach”. Where a notice of unresolved dispute was obtained on 11 February 2025 s415 of the RTRA Act operates to limit Mr Healy’s claim to compensation for breaches of the RTRA Act or the tenancy agreement that arose after 11 August 2024. I am satisfied that all claims are within time.[4] 

   [4]Applying ss416 and 419(3) of the RTRAA.

3. Where a lessor is claiming compensation due to an act or omission of the tenant, they must take all reasonable steps to mitigate their loss and are not entitled to receive compensation for any loss or expense that could have been avoided by taking the steps.[5]

   [5]Section 362, ibid.

4. Compensation is intended to put the complainant back, so far as money can do it, into the same position as if the damage had not occurred.[6] 

   [6]Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351.

1. In the case of damage to property, this is usually: 

   (a)diminution of value in the property (the cost of repair);[7] and 

   (b)consequential losses but subject to:

   (i)      betterment/allowance for depreciation,

   (ii)      reasonableness and duty to mitigate, and

   (iii)     remoteness.   

   [7]Davidson v J S Gilbert Fabrications Pty Ltd [1986] 1 Qd R 1.

2. The diminution in value is immediate when the damage occurs, so it is not a condition precedent to the claim that a repair has been done incurring expense.[8]

   [8]Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384; Stockdale & Leggo v Gordon [2017] QCATA 112.

3. Betterment is when an award would place a lessor in a better position than if the breach had not occurred in the first place. This might arise for example, where a lessor replaced an old heavily soiled and stained carpet and claimed the whole cost of this from the tenant responsible for a stain. It may be true in such a case that the lessor would not have replaced the carpet if it were not for the new stain, and so on the face of it the cost of the new carpet is the lessor’s loss. But in such a case, it would be fair that the lessor give credit for the betterment.[9] 

   [9]Gagner Pty Ltd t/as Indochine Café v Canturi Corporation Pty Ltd (2009) 262 ALR 691.

4. In Fankhauser v Mission Beach Property Management [2017] QCATA 65 carpet with a replacement cost of $2,500 was damaged by the tenant and had to be replaced. The tribunal awarded the lessor $1,800, reduced to $500, pointing out that since the carpet was eight years old and probably had a lifespan of 10 years, it had a life left of two years.

5. Section 362 of the RTRA Act provides that if the lessor suffers loss because of an act or omission of the tenant, the lessor must:[10]

   (a)take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss or expense; and

   (b)is not entitled to receive compensation for any loss or expense that could have been avoided by taking the steps.

   [10]Section 362(3), RTRAA.

6. It is thought that this is simply a restatement of the common law duty to mitigate and the use of the words ‘all reasonable steps’ does not establish a more onerous duty than a requirement that the lessor act reasonably in taking the course decided upon.[11]

   [11]Ray White Victoria Point v Simons & Anor [2018] QCATA 162, [13].

7. The size, type and position of carpet stains may justify replacement of the carpet in a well-appointed and luxuriously fitted out room, but specialist cleaning, patching or covering with a mat are alternatives which ought to be considered as part of the duty to mitigate loss.

Consideration of claims

Water

1. The Tribunal accepts evidence tendered by Mr Healy that Ms McNamara paid water consumption charges as invoiced throughout the tenancy, until the final invoice, and that it was a term of her tenancy that she does so.

2. Mr Healy’s calculations, based upon Ms McNamara’s exit photograph of the water meter and prior rates notices are disputed by Ms McNamara. She says the charges fall outside the term of her tenancy and in any event are inconsistent with the average daily rate of use charged for prior periods.

3. Respectfully, the Redland City Council rates notices are somewhat confusing with respect to water consumption charges. For example, the rates notice due 17 February 2025 pertains to a Billing Period of 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2025, however the period for which water consumption charges are levied is 20 August 2024 to 19 November 2024.

4. Summarised in a table, notices for the relevant period and a prior period indicate as follows:          

Billing period start	Billing period end	Invoice amount	Water consumption period	Water consumption charges
1 July 2024	30 September 2024	$1,127.32	22 February 2024 to 28 May 2024 (96 days) [12]	$154.43 (paid)
1 January 2025	31 March 2025	$1,152.46	20 August 2024 to 19 November 2024 (91 days), 537 last reading	$179.57 (43Kl at $4.176 per Kl)

[12]Previous read date is not included in calculating the number of days.

1. It follows that for the final reading of ‘545’ per the photograph sent by Ms McNamara to Mr Healy, from the day following the last meter read on 20 November 2024 to 10 December 2024, 8 kilolitres were consumed, and are charged at $4.176 per Kl for a total charge, to be invoiced to Mr Healy, of $33.41.  Added to the value of the most recent invoice outstanding in the sum of $179.57, Mr Healy’s claim of $212.86 is correctly calculated and the sum of $212.86 as claimed is awarded to Mr Healy accordingly.

2. In any event, Ms McNamara conceded the water charges in the 9 June 2025 hearing.

Gas

1. Ms McNamara was required to pay for gas consumed during the tenancy, and, pursuant to the standard terms of the GTA and s188 of the RTRA Act to return the tenancy at the end to its start condition, which, with respect to gas, required a full gas bottle to be left upon exit as it was at the start.

2. These terms applied, despite the removal of the special term with respect to the gas bottle from the second GTA.

3. Further, the Tribunal accepts evidence tendered by Mr Healy that Ms McNamara paid for gas refills as invoiced throughout the tenancy, until the final charge.

4. Ms McNamara argued that the gas bill was paid, and gas was not “reordered”. That may be the case, but gas needed to be reordered to restore the entry condition of the property, at Ms McNamara’s expense. The claim of $182.00 for a replacement gas bottle/refill, based on the invoice for the prior refill, is allowed on that basis. 

Oven cleaning

1. The Tribunal accepts Mr Healy’s evidence that the entry condition of the property was established by him over a couple of weeks after the tenancy started. This is consistent with correspondence between the parties referring to what needed to be done.

2. If Mr Healy, as lessor, breached his obligation under s185 of the RTRA Act to provide the property in a good repair and clean condition at the start of the tenancy, the tenant’s rights were to first put the lessor on notice to remedy the breach: this is what the exchange of correspondence between the parties establishes, namely, that Mr Healy remedied the entry condition breaches to establish an entry condition, within the first two weeks of the tenancy.

3. With respect to the oven, Mr Healy paid ‘Oven U’ $235.00 to clean the built-in oven and the rangehood on 11 February 2023, ten days after the tenancy commenced.

4. The exit photographs tendered by both parties satisfy the Tribunal that the oven was not clean on exit to the entry standard (established on 11 February 2023), as the bottom of the oven is obscured by the oven trays in Ms McNamara’s photograph, however, Mr Healy’s (date-stamped) photograph depicts debris needing cleaning on the oven floor, being the area that was concealed by the trays.

5. However, there is no evidence that the oven requires a full clean as opposed to a top-up clean to address the oven floor. Further there is no evidence that the rangehood required exit cleaning. The Tribunal allows one half of the costs of cleaning the built in oven only, per the itemised Oven U invoice, and awards the sum of $92.50 for oven cleaning on that basis.

Ensuite Vanity

1. The entry condition report describes the condition of the vanity as clean and undamaged. There is no reference to an odour in the vanity in the entry condition report.

2. Mr Healy describes observing an odour and seeing an item[13] in the ensuite vanity cupboard during a pre-exit inspection following carpet cleaning on 7 December 2024. It appears from Mr Healy’s evidence that Ms McNamara conceded with frustration that her bond cleaner had overlooked the ensuite vanity and that she subsequently removed the item. Ms McNamara otherwise referred to this evidence by Mr Healy as “not relevant” and did not comment further in her submissions.

   [13]A non-publication order made prior to the hearing prevents further particulars.

3. On 9 December 2024, Mr Healy says he observed the scent of vanilla and cleaning product in the ensuite, as did Ms McNamara’s cleaner, but on 12 December 2024 Mr Healy observed the odour again, upon opening the vanity.

4. The vanity was aired, with sodium bicarbonate and vinegar applied to the vanity to overcome the odour, for approximately five weeks. 

5. On 3 February 2025, Mr Healy’s newly appointed agent attended the property and gave evidence that the odour is embedded and cannot be overcome by cleaning or further airing. 

6. Ms McNamara says that there was no odour caused by her tenancy and says that the agent “does not have the professional qualifications to ascertain if the vanity has an odour”. This submission is not accepted in its entirety: any person can give evidence as witness to an odour and, in their lived experience, as to the likely source or cause of the odour.

7. Qualifications would be required to give evidence on the exact cause of an odour and how to treat it and this would extend, in this case, to an opinion as to whether an article needs replacing. 

8. Mr Healy and his agent are well placed to give evidence as to what they saw and whether they observed an odour. They have done so, in some detail, which cannot be disclosed in these reasons.

9. The Tribunal accepts and finds that an odour and, on balance, the probable cause of it, were observed by Mr Healy on 7 December 2024, that Ms McNamara and/or her cleaner removed the offending item and temporarily addressed the odour it caused by 9 December 2024 but by 12 December 2024 and still on 3 February 2025 the odour was observable: described by Mr Healy as “terrible” on 16 December 2024 (in the exit condition report) and by the agent as a “strong smell” (as at 3 February 2025, per their statement dated 18 February 2025).  Storage of the item in a closed bathroom vanity was not reasonable having regard to the use to which Ms McNamara put the item, and it was foreseeable that odour would be absorbed into the vanity as a consequence.

10. Ms McNamara has breached her s188 obligation with respect to the exit condition of the vanity, there being no evidence to support a finding that the odour arises from fair, wear and tear. In any event, as mentioned, an ensuite vanity – and perhaps even indoors generally - is not appropriate for using or storing the item in question.

11. Where odour is in issue, it is usual, in the Tribunal’s experience for a lessor to first attempt cleaning to mitigate. The Tribunal finds that with respect to the vanity all reasonable steps were taken to eradicate the odour by cleaning and airing.

12. However, there is also no evidence to explain why the vanity including the sink and plumbing needs to be fully replaced, as opposed to, for example, just the chipboard or at least why the plumbing and the sink cannot be reused if the surrounding cabinetry is replaced. The quote by Davran Installations is simply that, and not a report or opinion that speaks to why the vanity must be fully replaced to address the issue of the odour.

13. Nor is there evidence as to the age of the vanity, noting that the property appeared to be in a somewhat aged or used condition at the commencement of the tenancy, per the entry condition report that noted damaged, chipped, and marked surfaces and fittings throughout. 

14. The Tribunal accepts that work is required, including replacing the chipboard or odour-absorbing elements of the vanity cabinetry, but applying principles of betterment and an obligation to mitigate by reusing the aspects of the existing vanity, if possible (there is no evidence that they cannot be used), the claim cannot be allowed in full on the evidence before the Tribunal. The award to Mr Healy is therefore reduced to 20%, being $719.00.

Carpets

1. In addition to their s188 obligations, s184C of the RTRA Act makes a tenant responsible for repairing any damage to the premises or inclusions caused by a pet kept at the premises.

2. Mr Healy gave evidence that the carpets were newly installed in the property in October 2018 and, so, were just over four years old when the tenancy commenced and just over six years old when it ended. 

3. Ms McNamara says that Mr Healy nonetheless lived in the property during this time with several children and two dogs which would have contributed to wear and tear.

4. With respect to bedroom three, the entry condition report observes the carpets to be in clean and undamaged condition. There is no evidence to suggest that the carpets were stained or permeating a urine odour at the start of the tenancy nor that Ms McNamara, who catalogued all other communication with the lessor over the term of the tenancy and tendered the catalogue in evidence for the hearing.

5. Mr Healy gave evidence that:

   (a)Ms McNamara sought and was granted permission to have a cat at the property as a term of the second GTA.

   (b)On 7 December 2024 and in the days that followed, bedroom three had an odour of carpet shampoo that travelled into the nearby kitchen area.

   (c)On 12 December 2024, the cleaning smell had dissipated, and the unpleasant odour of cat urine was evident in bedroom three.

   (d)Cleaning and airing efforts by the lessor ensued.

   (e)As with the vanity, the agent observed the smell of urine in the bedroom three carpet during the 3 February 2025 inspection.

6. In the Tribunal’s experience, it is not uncommon that urine odours in carpet only become apparent after carpet cleaning processes draw them out. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Healy that he observed the odour on 12 December 2025 and that the agent observed it again on 3 February 2025.

7. Although the Tribunal understands a new tenant to have taken possession of the property shortly after Ms McNamara vacated, the ongoing presence of an odour that was observed before the new tenant took possession satisfies the Tribunal that there was an odour of pet urine evident at the end of the tenancy. This breaches ss 184C and 188.

8. Mr Healy tendered a quote by Bennetts Carpets dated 25 February 2025 to replace the carpets including the underlay at a cost of $1,493.00. The quote was based upon a floor plan without a site inspection and, therefore, is evidence as to quantum only and not evidence as to the condition of the carpets and whether they require replacing on account of the odour.

9. Nor did Mr Healy produce evidence from a carpet layer or cleaner attesting to the need to replace, rather than to first attempt a deep clean of the carpet. The agent is not qualified to give that opinion.

10. Further, although Mr Healy attested to cleaning the nearby kitchen floors and other surfaces, he did not give evidence of any additional attempts to deep clean the carpet.

11. On balance, Mr Healy has not established that he met his obligation to mitigate under s362 by failing to attempt further cleaning of the carpet in bedroom three, and, further, Mr Healy has not established that the carpet must be replaced with new carpet to remedy the breach. If he had established these things, the Tribunal would be compelled in the circumstances to depreciate the claim of $1,493.00 because the new carpet would be replacing carpet that is six years old and principles of betterment would require the discounting.

12. The carpet is clearly damaged and, at best, requires further, deep cleaning. The Tribunal awards Mr Healy the sum of $400.00 towards deep cleaning of the carpets and, if they cannot be cleaned, towards the replacement cost of the carpet.

Pool

1. The claims for the pool comprise:

   (a)Stain treatment, deferred to Winter 2025, estimated at $400.00.

   (b)Mr Healy’s time to treat and clean the pool, at $50 per hour for three hours, totalling $150.00.

   (c)Swimart invoices for an algae brush and chemicals purchased on 13 December 2024 ($106.30), for chemicals purchased on 14 December 2024 ($52.95) and for a service on 13 January 2025 ($99.00).

2. These claims are a vexed issue because the special term of the first GTA that expressly required the tenant to be responsible for the pool, including chemicals and servicing but not capital expenses, was removed from the second GTA by its own special term.

3. Nonetheless, the pool forms part of the ‘premises’ to which:

   (a)s185(3) of the RTRA Act applies to require Mr Healy to maintain the pool in good repair,

   (b)s217 applies to require Ms McNamara to give Mr Healy notice of the need to repair the pool if damaged, and

   (c)s188 applies to require Ms McNamara to keep the pool clean, and to return the pool at the end of the tenancy in the condition it was in at the start of the tenancy, fair wear and tear accepted.

4. The condition of the pool and pool equipment at the start of the tenancy are described as clean, working, and undamaged in the entry condition report, except for observations that there were cracked tiles around the pool and that the pool fence bricks were loose. Further, a Swimart report tendered by Ms McNamara when she commenced servicing the pool during her first-term tenancy on 12 February 2023 suggests nothing untoward with respect to the pool although the combined chlorine level and pH level was high, and the alkaline, salt, sunscreen and hardness levels were low but were all treated.

5. Mr Healy says the 21 October 2024 report shows “dangerously low levels of chlorine” with no subsequent testing by the tenant to correct it.  Respectfully, this mispresents the report: the free chlorine level was low at 0.16, however the combined chlorine level was within the desired range as was the total chlorine level.  The 12 February 2023 report referenced above noted the free chlorine level at 0.29 (anything under 2 is “low range”), the combined chlorine level at high and the total chlorine level within the desired range. 

6. The Swimart report dated 9 December 2024 again notes a low level of free chlorine (at 0.17) but otherwise the combined and total chlorine levels were within the desired range, salt and alkaline again low and pH level high.

7. The Swimart report dated 13 December 2024 notes an improvement in the free chlorine to a higher end of the ‘low’ range at 1.7.  Otherwise, the reports dated 12 February 2023, 21 October 2024, 9 December 2024 and 13 December 2024 are arguably, not dissimilar.

8. Mr Healy tendered photographs of the pool and its filter taken on 13 and 14 December 2024 in which green water is evident in the window display of the filter, and of some black spots in the pool.

9. He attributes Ms McNamara’s neglect of the pool in the months prior to her tenancy ending as responsible for the black spot and algae that he observed, and that he cleaned himself.

10. Ms McNamara submits that the Swimart reports do not support a finding that she neglected the pool nor that it required treatment for algae, black spot or staining as a consequence of her neglect.

11. A representative of Swimart emailed Mr Healy on 16 January 2025 and expressed the following views:

    It is difficult to assess what has caused the staining to your pool. One possible cause could be impure salt, or salt not thoroughly brushed in, or it could be from bore water if bore water was used to top up the pool. There are a number of reasons that could cause the staining.

12. In an earlier email, sent 13 January 2025, Swimart advised Mr Healy that there were no signs of black spot but that the pool should be treated for stains.

13. Having regard to the entry and exit condition evidence of the pool, in particular the Swimart reports, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Ms McNamara breached her obligation to return the pool at the end of the tenancy in the condition it was in at the start, fair wear and tear accepted.  The pool appears to have been serviced and treated throughout, perhaps though not in November 2024. Nothing in the 1 February 2024 to 30 January 2025 tenancy agreement required Ms McNamara to service the pool.

14. The presence of green water in the filter on 13 December 2024 doesn’t reflect photographs taken of the water in the pool at the time. Swimart have offered no opinion in relation to the presence of the green water in the filter. 

15. Black spots are visible but there is no report to indicate that the spots are a condition that required treatment due to any failing by Ms McNamara. Swimart’s report in January 2025 mentions that there is no sign of black spot; perhaps because Mr Healy treated it, but the Tribunal cannot be sure on the evidence it was ever diagnosed in the first place.

16. The staining appears to have been observed by Swimart on 13 January 2025 and they cannot say what caused it. It is possible this arises from fair, wear and tear.

17. On balance, Mr Healy has not established a breach with respect to the pool that would entitle him to compensation as claimed. There are certainly no grounds to compel Ms McNamara to pay for an algae brush nor for the service or treatments that occurred after 10 December 2024 nor evidence that support a finding that Ms McNamara is responsible for the staining observed on 13 January 2025.

18. The pool claims are therefore dismissed in their entirety.

The $735.00

1. According to the application for minor civil dispute, Mr Healy says that, with respect to the $735.00 payment from the Bond, he did not include it in the claim because although Ms McNamara had agreed to pay it, it had not been paid, at the time the application was filed.

2. On one reading of the filed material, the payment reflected an agreement by the parties to resolve the issue of Ms McNamara’s early termination of the fixed term tenancy and would fall outside the terms of this tenancy dispute.

3. However, Mr Healy has denied a claim to the money at all material times as he did not pursue any objection to Ms McNamara’s early termination of the lease. It is also clear that Mr Healy took early possession of the property; despite the tenancy ending on 10 December 2024, the incoming tenant was permitted to store goods there that day, and there is evidence to Mr Healy staying in the property on 7 and 8 December 2024. It appears Mr Healy took charge of some of the cleaning that ought to have fallen to Ms McNamara as the exiting tenant. 

4. Further, Ms McNamara has suggested the payment should be applied towards the gas and electricity costs.

5. On balance, there appears to be a dispute with respect to the bond, which included the $735.00 at the time the application was filed. In the absence of a claim to that sum for rent or a break lease fee, the Tribunal must apply it as a credit in Ms McNamara’s favour in deciding this application. 

Summary and decision

1. The Tribunal has awarded Mr Healy:

Nature of claim		Amount claimed		Amount Awarded
Water (GTA cl 17 and item 12.2)
Redlands City Council	Consumption from 20 August 2024 to 10 December 2024 (per last notice and final water meter read).		$212.98	$212.98
Gas (GTA cl 16 and item 12.1)
Gas	One refill bottle.		$182.00	$182.00
Oven cleaning
Oven U	Estimate based on historical cost to clean.		$235.00	$92.50
Replace damaged ensuite
Davran Installations quote 19 February 2025	Replace damaged vanity including necessary plumbing.		$3,595.00	$719.00
Replace damaged carpet
Bennetts quote 25 February 2025	Supply and install carpet to bedroom 3 including underlay and disposing of existing carpet.		$1,493.00	$400.00
Swimming pool expenses
Swimart	Chemicals, stain treatment and lessor’s time.		$808.25	$0.00
Total awarded				$1,606.48
Less $735.00 credit				($735.00)
Amount payable to Mr Healy from the Bond				$871.48

1. From the remaining bond of $2,065.00, the RTA is directed to pay $871.48 to Mr Healy and the balance of $1,193.52 to Ms McNamara.

2. Pursuant to s100 of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal makes no order as to costs.